S.Suresh Kumar vs National Insurance Company Limited

THE complainant was the owner of a car "Maruti Esteem LX" having purchased it on 7.10.1996 for a sum of Rs. 4,96,336.79P. THE vehicle was delivered on 10.10.1996. It was insured with the opposite party-National Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 4,96,000/- for the period from 9.10.1996 to 8.10.1997.

THE car met with an accident on 18.5.1997. THE next day i.e. 19.5.1997 the accident was informed to the opposite party-Insurance Company. THE complainant took the vehicle to an authorised Maruti Service Station at Mettukadu. THE service centre prepared an estimate for repairing the damaged vehicle at Rs. 5,87,192.20P. On 9.6.1997 a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for the said sum of Rs. 5,87,192.20P. THE Surveyors of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and they told the complainant that they would discuss the matter and finalise the survey report within 15 days. But there was no communication from the Surveyors. THE complainant sent a reminder to the Insurance Company. While so, on 6.8.1997 itself the Insurance Company sent a communication asking the complainant to forward the final bills but the complainant on 15.8.1997 wrote a letter to the Insurance Company that the damage was a total loss and therefore they had to pay the cost of the vehicle and no question of submitting final bills arose. But the opposite parties had not settled the claim. According to the complainant on account of the delay in settling the claim the complainant has incurred heavy sums by engaging other vehicles for his use. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint has been filed claiming the cost of the vehicle at Rs. 4,96,000/- and also compensation. The opposite parties National Insurance Company Limited Company contends that soon after hearing about the accident they appointed Surveyors and they had given their report on repair basis assessing at Rs. 3,45,320/-. Then the opposite parties called upon the complainant to furnish the bills for final settlement. But the complainant wrote to them saying that he was not prepared to receive it and insisted for settling the claim on total loss basis. The complainant cannot insist on payment of total loss basis as he wishes. He has to repair the vehicle and claim only the amount spent for that. The Insurance Company decided to settle the claim on the basis of the Surveyors'' report, but before they could communicate their decision the complainant has rushed to this Commission. Thus there was no delay on the part of the opposite party - Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is prepared to settle the matter on repair basis which amount was fixed by the Surveyors or on cash loss basis paying an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- with liberty to the complainant to return the damaged vehicle. Therefore the claim of the complainant that he is entitled to the cost of the vehicle on total loss basis is not sustainable. Hence the complaint is not sustainable. The Hon''ble Commission may allow the complaint in terms offered by the Insurance Company.

The point that arise for decision is whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what relief can be granted to the complainant ?

IT is common case that the vehicle had met with an accident and it had been badly damaged. However, when it is the case of the complainant that it is a case of total loss, the opposite parties would contend that the vehicle can be repaired at a cost of Rs. 3,45,320/-. As to whether it is a case of total loss or the vehicle could be repaired, there is no clear evidence. In this position, we are not able to decide whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or not. However, the opposite parties are even now prepared to pay the said sum of Rs. 3,45,320/-. We are of the view that, in the circumstances of the case the opposite parties can be ordered to pay this amount and refer the complaint to the Civil Court for more amount if the complainant still thinks that he would be entitled to it. To this course the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant is quite agreeable. Considering the facts of the case, it appears to us that there was no undue delay on the part of the opposite parties in their offer of settlement. Thus considering, we pass an award directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,45,320/- with 12% interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 7.10.1997. We give liberty to the complainant to file a civil suit for any excess amount which he thinks he is entitle to. In case such a suit is filed, we believe that the time ''taken in these proceedings will be considered for the purpose of limitation. In these terms the complaint is disposed of. Complaint disposed of.